Dissembling discredits Defence and alliance

Page Tools

Toying with the definition of abuse cannot disguise moral and legal failure. Comment by Tom Allard.

The trio at the apex of Australia's defence establishment have brought discredit upon themselves and the armed services during the saga of what Australians knew about allegations of prisoner abuse in Iraq.

By design or ignorance, the Defence Minister, Robert Hill, the Chief of the Defence Force, General Peter Cosgrove, and the secretary of the Department of Defence, Ric Smith, made serious omissions in their recent statements, which amounted to misleading the public.

Hill told the Senate on May 11 that there were only three relevant facts as far as Australian knowledge of the abuses was concerned: no Australians saw the shocking photos before they went public; a CNN report in mid-January that the US military was investigating abuse allegations was the first time they became aware of them; and a February Red Cross report on abuses in Abu Ghraib had been passed on.

After the Herald revealed that Major George O'Kane was deeply involved in dealing with Red Cross complaints from October, when he heard of abuse claims, Smith and Cosgrove put their names to a public statement saying "abuse and serious mistreatment" had not been discovered until January.

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Even with the Government blocking the appearance of O'Kane before yesterday's Senate hearing, it is now well-established that at least the military lawyer was aware of abuses as early as October.

But that has not stopped the Defence chiefs dissembling - and it all hinges on what amounts to "abuse and serious mistreatment".

According to Hill, the abuses the Government was concerned about when it made inquiries extended to "rape, torture, beatings and other abuses of that type".

But the humiliation, forced nudity and keeping prisoners in cells with no daylight for days on end, revealed in Red Cross reports that O'Kane saw and dealt with, surely constitutes abuse.

Hill conceded last night that they were "inhumane". They are flagrant breaches of the Geneva conventions. At the very least, the practices should have rung serious alarm bells and prompted immediate inquiries.

Australia had a legal and moral obligation to ensure prisoners were detained in accordance with international norms. That it did not act is instructive of the broader relationship with the US.

The alliance offers the chance for Australia to curb US excesses and exert a moderating influence. In this case Australia manifestly failed to do so.